Stop and frisk has run amok

Something can be both effective and unconstitutional. But when the two are at odds, constitutionality must prevail. It did on Monday with a federal court decision that ruled against New York City's noxious stop-and-frisk policy.

Championed by New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, the practice was ruled unconstitutional by U.S. District Judge Shira Sheindlin. Her 198-page decision essentially boiled down to this: "Many police practices may be useful for fighting crime ... but because they are unconstitutional, they cannot be used, no matter how effective." Including stop and frisk, as currently employed in New York, which unfairly targets blacks and Hispanics.

Stop and frisk allows New York City police officers to search anyone regardless of whether they believe a crime has been committed. In 2011, nearly one-third of the 684,000 people subjected to questioning or a pat-down search were made without having met the legal standard of reasonable suspicion. Only 10 percent of all such stops resulted in an arrest, and most of those were for minor drug offenses.

One can only imagine what it feels like for a person of color to be regularly stopped and patted down for no reason at all.

The outrage from Bloomberg following the court ruling was over the top. He said Judge Sheindlin "does not understand how policing works." Perhaps not. But she knows exactly how it should work in the confines of what the Constitution allows. She ruled that the policy could continue, but only under strong new restrictions that likely would include prohibiting police officers from conducting such stops based on race.

Those who defend the policy are quick to point out that the official policy of the police department prohibits racially based stops. But the statistics suggest the policy is being ignored. Since the advent of stop and frisk, millions of innocent New Yorkers - overwhelmingly young men of color - have been illegally stopped by police. And Bloomberg believes he has a trump card to play as the city appeals this ruling: He claims that New Yorkers feel safer than ever because of stop and frisk.

That is certainly open to debate. But what is undeniable is that the flagrant misuse and overuse of this policy has added to the atmosphere of distrust between the police and a significant number of citizens.

Bloomberg is certain to appeal this decision. We hope he is rebuffed in the higher courts as well. No city should be able to use "the ends justify the means" as an argument to engage in systematic abuse of its citizens' constitutional rights.

For now, the NYPD has to cease its seemingly relentless assault on the Fourth Amendment guarantee that persons not be subject to any intrusive and needless searches. The Constitution does not allow officials to have a "show of hands" to vote on constitutional rights. That is not how America works. Stop and frisk should be stopped. Permanently.

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

Email this article

Stop and frisk has run amok

Something can be both effective and unconstitutional. But when the two are at odds, constitutionality must prevail. It did on Monday with a federal court decision that ruled against New York City's

A link to this page will be included in your message.

Real Deals

Sales, coupons, circulars and more from your favorite Jersey Shore area retailers.